Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is Interviewed about Impeachment; Sanders and Warren Feud; Peter Navarro talks Trade Agreements. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired January 16, 2020 - 09:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:18]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Well, today, every sitting senator and the Supreme Court's chief justice, John Roberts, will be sworn in for President Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. This is as the battle over witnesses just continues.

Joining me now is one of those senators to become a juror later today, Democrat Bob Menendez of New Jersey. He is also, of course, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Good to have you, Senator. Thank you for being here.

As you prepare to swear in for all of this, the chief justice, according to the Constitution, John Roberts, has broad -- pretty broad power. All it says is that the chief justice shall preside over a Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president. It's not totally specific what he can and can't do. And I think that this trial will test that.

What do you believe the chief justice should do in terms of potentially compelling witnesses and documents?

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ, (D-NJ): Well, I think he should act in a manner in which he would act if he was actually presiding over a trial in any other process, which is, obviously, listening to motions, making decisions on those motions, and guiding the trial in a fair and transparent manner.

Now, in the last impeachment, the former chief justice said I did very little and I did it well. It's going to be a question of what the chief justice chooses to do. And even if he chooses to actively engage in presiding in a way that we would expect from any judge, he can be overruled by a majority vote of the Senate. So Mitch McConnell and Republicans could overrule any decision he does make.

HARLOW: Yes. Yes, with just a simple majority.

But the question, as you rightly bring up, will he follow the Rehnquist model or not, right? MENENDEZ: Right.

HARLOW: Let's move on to the stunning interview that we all heard. I'm sure you saw or read it, of Lev Parnas with Anderson Cooper last night. I know you've been speaking with your Republican colleagues in the Senate and you told Anderson just a few days ago that some Republican senators are telling you they are leaning towards at least voting yes on witnesses in the Senate trial.

Do you believe that what we heard from Lev Parnas makes that more likely?

MENENDEZ: Well, I think it adds to the growing -- a growing chorus of issues that really cries out for witnesses. You know, first of all, every American who's ever been a juror at a trial, a participant in a trial, a witness or a TV -- or seen it on TV knows that a trial involves witnesses and documents, plain and simple. That's the American way.

[09:35:01]

Secondly, I would hope that even before Lev Parnas, that the comments made by some of my colleagues of their desire to see witnesses, they can make their desires real by casting a vote to do that. And Parnas, we don't know the veracity of it, but nonetheless, it's the same story line, that President Trump wanted one thing from Ukraine, and that was an investigation of the Bidens.

HARLOW: Well, and what Parnas brings to this equation is that it -- was, according to Parnas, if you believe him, and he has some major credibility issues, clearly, is that it could have gone back to the Poroshenko administration, which totally undermines this administration's argument of, hey, we wanted to make sure Zelensky and his team were focused on rooting out corruption. We'll see how this plays out.

On the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, and these documents from Lev Parnas that show that she was -- there was a real effort to track her in a very disturbing way, you have sent a letter to the State Department asking for an immediate briefing on this. We know Ukraine's investigating it. We've not heard from state if they're investigating it. Have they agreed to brief you?

MENENDEZ: I think this morning, just before I came on, I got a message from my staff director that they are talking about briefing us. And I hope they do, and at the highest levels.

It would be ironic that Ukraine is more interested in pursuing the security of what happened to a U.S. ambassador than the United States and the State Department would. And so I'm looking for a vigorous investigation of what went on here because Ambassador Yovanovitch, at the House Intelligence Committee, testified that she was -- felt intimidated.

HARLOW: That's right. OK. Well, let us know what you hear if that briefing is confirmed. Finally, on the Iran ongoing situation with the United States, the

Trump administration, the White House abruptly canceled four scheduled classified congressional briefings on the situation with Iran, one of which you yourself had requested. And I'm just wondering, because there's been no indication to us of why they canceled. Do you know why? And has it been rescheduled?

MENENDEZ: Well, ostensively, they had scheduling conflicts. But this was on the books for a while now, number one. Number two, it's required. Number three, we are in the midst of possibly casting votes on a war powers resolution --

HARLOW: Right.

MENENDEZ: And the continuing challenge with Iran. We need to have this information.

I think the reason the administration doesn't want to send up the key people involved in the Iran issues is they don't want to answer the simple question, at what point do you believe that you need to come to Congress and ask for authorities if you're going to continue to engage Iran in any way militarily.

HARLOW: Again, that briefing, let us know if that gets rescheduled.

Senator Menendez, appreciate your time this morning.

MENENDEZ: Thank you.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: He's going to be another juror in the trial of the president.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: All these senators.

Coming up, we're hearing now exactly what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders said in a dramatic, very tense moment right after the CNN debate. You'll be able to hear it on this broadcast.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:30]

HARLOW: We all saw the tense exchange between Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders after the Democratic debate. Warren refused to shake Sanders' hand and then proceeded to have a conversation with him.

SCIUTTO: Well, now we know exactly what they said. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?

WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SANDERS: No, let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

WARREN: Any time.

SANDERS: You called me a liar. You told me -- all right, let's not do it now.

TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't want to get in the middle of it. I just want to say, hi, Bernie.

SANDERS: Yes, good.

STEYER: It's great (ph) to see you.

SANDERS: OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Goodness, that's quite a moment.

CNN political correspondent MJ Lee joins us now.

HARLOW: I -- the Tom Steyer moment, I was just -- you know, he was like standing there not knowing what to say.

MJ LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

HARLOW: But to the substance of it, it is so important and those few words are so telling.

LEE: That's right. I mean you really saw raw emotions between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. And this is actually exactly the kind of thing that both senators did not want to show on the debate stage.

You'll recall that prior to the CNN debate, both campaigns indicated in different ways that they were not interested in talking about this private exchange. They were not wanting to sort of linger on the topic. And that's exactly what we saw on the debate stage.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

LEE: Bernie Sanders insisted he never said this. Then moved on to talk about sort of women in general and how he does believe that women can win the presidency. Elizabeth Warren said he and I disagreed. I said that a woman could win. He disagreed with me and she, too, talked about sort of the gender and electability issue, right?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

So Democrats clearly concerned about this. In "The Washington Post," Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, who's himself preparing to endorse Warren, said the following, it's hard to project an image of unity a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primaries. I've spoken to a number of members of Congress today who want to be sure the rivalry is robust and uninhibited but it doesn't lead to the kinds of bruised feelings and burned bridges that took place in 2016.

I mean clear concern it's not a good look within the party but, arguably, for either candidate here.

LEE: No, there's no question that there is real concern about any kind of fighting or disagreements between the Democratic candidates. I think it is one thing for the candidates to have robust policy disagreements and to not agree on issues like health care or what have you.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

LEE: I think when it gets to sort of the personal territory, like it has with this exchange, I think that has party leaders increasingly worried.

And this is a sentiment that we hear from voters too, right, when we're out there on the campaign trail talking to voters. You never really hear voters saying, yes, what I would like to see more of is Bernie Sanders taking on Elizabeth Warren or Elizabeth Warren going after Joe Biden.

[09:45:06]

That is a very, very rare sentiment. And I think the reason for that is because Democratic voters, for the most part, are very much focused on beating Donald Trump.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

LEE: And they think anything that isn't focused on that is just sort of time wasted.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: MJ, thanks again. Your reporting broke all of this. We appreciate it.

LEE: Thanks.

HARLOW: On the same week that impeachment heads to the Senate, not one but two major trade agreements. The president's trade adviser, top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, is here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:50:00]

SCIUTTO: As the Senate prepares for an impeachment trial of the president, lawmakers also set to take up a major vote today. Senators from both parties expected to pass a major legislative priority for the president, the revised North American Free Trade Agreement, known now as the USMCA.

With me now, White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro.

Peter, thanks for taking the time this morning.

PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: Morning in America right here at the White House. In two days, we're going to pass two of the biggest trade deals in history. Donald J. Trump did it. All good (ph).

SCIUTTO: OK, I want to ask you about this.

So let's start with USMCA, and I don't want to diminish --

NAVARRO: Sure.

SCIUTTO: One, this was, of course, a priority for the president. Two, it's a rare case of bipartisan cooperation on this because Democrats passing it along with Republicans.

There are questions, though. And I'm quoting from "The Wall Street Journal" here, higher production costs, protection for politically influential industries. It calls it worse than NAFTA. And I know that's the editorial page's opinion of this, but they're all legitimate --

NAVARRO: That was actually a "WSJ" editorial?

SCIUTTO: It was. But there are legitimate questions because the CBO --

NAVARRO: Well, shame on them.

SCIUTTO: The CBO, of course, which is nonpartisan, put out its own story saying that some automakers will just pay the tariffs because the costs of moving production are so high.

For folks at home who want to know, OK, is this going to be more jobs for me and my family and my neighbor, what are the guarantees given those real questions that USMCA works for Americans?

NAVARRO: A 100 percent guarantee. I should note that the CBO projected, I think, 1.9 percent economic growth and a 4.5 percent unemployment rate if the Trump administration got in there. And they got that way wrong.

The International Trade Commission forecasts 75,000 jobs in the auto industry alone. Close to 200,000 jobs overall, appointed growth over time. And this is a great deal.

USMCA, it's unique because it helps farmers and ranchers, as well as manufacturers and workers. Dairy farmers, in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, have been hammered by the great walls of protection in Canada. Those are coming down.

So we love this deal. It's -- remember that trade with Canada and Mexico is twice the volume of that with China and five times the amount of exports. SCIUTTO: OK.

NAVARRO: So, we love this deal. I -- you know, "The Wall Street Journal" never met a job it didn't want offshore. So I can take them with a grain of salt.

SCIUTTO: OK.

Let's talk about the China --

NAVARRO: I like to read the main street journal.

SCIUTTO: Let's talk about the China trade deal. OK. The phase one as the president calls it here.

NAVARRO: Sure.

SCIUTTO: Here's what China has agreed to buy in terms of agriculture products, and it's a major priority for this president, of course, for the farmers involved. And the first year, we'll put this up on the screen, $12.5 billion. In the second year, $19.5 billion.

But let's go back to 2017. If you compare the sales prior to the trade war, in 2017, China bought $19.5 billion in agricultural goods. It appears that this China trade deal is just -- it just reinstituting the sales that existed prior to the trade war.

NAVARRO: No, you're burying the lead here, Jim. The way the deal is struck is that those numbers are above, over and above and beyond the 2017 benchmarks. So they'll buy that they bought in 2017, plus $200 billion over two years across the three sectors.

SCIUTTO: So you're saying they're committed to $39 billion in sales?

NAVARRO: Yes. Yes.

SCIUTTO: That's written -- that's in writing, it's a commitment from China?

NAVARRO: Yes. It's in the 86 page agreement in English. And I think the Chinese version came in at about the same -- although they use more characters for stuff.

But, yes, it's -- look, and the purchases are great. It's $200 billion over a two-year period, over the 2017 benchmarks in agriculture, energy, manufacturing and services. But I think it does a great injustice to this agreement to focus on the purchases. The purchases are the icing on the cake.

What really drives this deal, Jim, are the structural issues that are being addressed. In this phase, we're dealing with the intellectual property theft and the counterfeiting issue, which is a big deal to this White House.

SCIUTTO: OK. I want to ask about that. NAVARRO: Yes.

SCIUTTO: I do want to say -- and, listen, you and I have had a lot of conversations about -- as you know, I've spent a lot of years covering China's malign activities on trade, including cyber theft.

NAVARRO: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Wrote a whole chapter in a book about that.

But you've also been a forward lean on an agreement with China. You want -- you've been seen as a voice for the strongest deal possible here. And what we're seeing here is a lot of the big issues that have been long time issues, including cybersecurity, but also China's enormous state subsidies to industries, which is a -- which gives them an enormous advantage, are not dealt with here.

You've argued for stronger trade deals in the past. Don't concede, don't go for, you know, half measures.

NAVARRO: Sure.

SCIUTTO: Why do you support this one since it leaves so many of those things on the table?

[09:55:05]

NAVARRO: So my concern has been what I've called the seven deadly structural sins. The economic aggression China commits against America. So in phase one, what boxes can we check? We can check three boxes, basically. We've got the intellectual property theft, the force technology transfer, the currency manipulation. And over and above those three boxes structurally we got the purchases in financial market access.

SCIUTTO: OK.

NAVARRO: Now, the other things you're mentioning are big. The unfair subsidies --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

NAVARRO: The state owned enterprises. The hacking of our computers. And something that matters dearly to this president, the killing of Americans with fentanyl. What do we have in place now?

Remember, we have tariffs in place now on $370 billion of Chinese goods. Those did not come off. Those tariffs are working beautifully to drive the trade deficit down with China. It's gone down the last four months. It's the best insurance policy also for China continue to negotiate on phase two. So we're trying to do this reasonably.

SCIUTTO: OK, we will -- we will be watching compliance as it goes forward. I know you'll be watching as well.

NAVARRO: And we will too. We'll be all over it. SCIUTTO: Peter Navarro, I know -- I know you're --

NAVARRO: (INAUDIBLE) on a June bug I think is the phrase.

SCIUTTO: I know you're directly involved in this. Thanks for taking the time this morning.

NAVARRO: Yes. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: As we speak, this is the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, on the floor, attacking Democrats' demands for witnesses.

Have a listen.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): The founding fathers who crafted and ratified our Constitution knew that our nation might sometimes fall prey to the kind of dangerous factionalism and partisanship that has consumed, literally consumed the House of Representatives.

The framers set up the Senate specifically to act as a check against the short-termism and the runaway passions to which the House of Representatives might fall victim.

Alexander Hamilton worried, quote, the demon of faction would extend his scepter over the House majorities at certain seasons, said Alexander Hamilton.

And he feared for the viability of the government established by the Constitution if blinded -- he feared for the viability of the government established by the Constitution if blinded by factualism, the House of Representatives would abuse the power of impeachment to serve nakedly partisan goals rather than long-term interests of the American people and their Republic. But, fortunately --

HARLOW: All right. We're going to, of course, monitor Mitch McConnell.

We're going to get a quick break. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]